Subject: Half of the Story of Ato
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:07:24 EDT
From: CHAPIVIE@aol.com
To: mageorge@freepress.com
 
 

My Dear Ms. George,  

I just read  your July 24 article entitled:  "Doomed dog is safe, activist says,  with Ato in hiding, legal actions run on, in the Free Press Ann Arbor Bureau.  From what I have read on Ato's website, which you reference in your article, I can't help but think that you must be auditioning for Mr. Bob West's press secretary for his next election campaign.  I get this impression because of the half of the story (Mr. West's) that you provide.  Although you state that Mr. Mullins nor the Ikumas were available for comment on Sunday, had you taken the time to visit the website which you referenced, you would have found considerable information that refutes all of the wonderful quotes you gave from Mr. West.  Yes, there is definitely much more to your story than you ever presented.  I can't help but point out but a few such instances.  In paragraph four of your article you say:  "......after biting a paperboy in August 1998 AND THREE OTHER PEOPLE."
Ato has not bitten three other people.  He scratched the 17 year old girl who startled him (while he was tied to the gate while the Ikumas were visiting her parents).  He jumped up on her and scratched her with his paws because he was startled, but he did not bite her.  He did bite the lady (Heidi Goldberg) who stuck her hand in the auto in which Ato was sitting, unattended) and Mrs. Goldberg later said it was HER FAULT for sticking her 
hand in the car.  (Had I been sitting in the car, possibly lost in thought and she stuck her hand in my face, I probably would have bitten her too.  Guess I must be a vicious person, glad I don't live in Ann Arbor).  And the your biggest omission here is that the third person bitten was the "court expert" animal behaviorist who stated in court that she provoked Ato to see if he would bite and he did.  She testified in court that this was a NORMAL 
reaction, not one of a vicious dog and that Ato SHOULD NOT BE EUTHANIZED.  I hope you are beginning to see the important facts which you omitted.  Later in  your article (about paragraph 6) you state:  Seiko Ikuma signed a waiver allowing a veterinarian to put the 90-pound chow chow to death.  You did not say it was "under duress and protest" i.e., under Contempt of Court charges if she did not.  Now this is a particular despicable and cruel order.  Authorize your beloved dog (on whom you have spent thousands and thousands of dollars trying to save it's life) to be killed or you will go to jail.  
Sounds like Ann Arbor justice to me.  There are other glaring areas in which you obviously relied upon Mr. Bob West for our information, which can be easily detected when you read the whole story on the website.  If you are going to write such "one-sided" articles, please at least give the public a clue that you are supporting the prosecution, intend to become press agent for them, or have only "half-researched the article.  You cannot imagine the pain and injury you inflict on the Ikuma family and their friends by your shoddy reporting.  I hope you will take this in the constructive manner in which it is written and will become a more "fair-minded" reporter in the future.

Sincerely,  
Michael G. Chapman, 
Atlanta, Georgia